Actually, my FF gear is now Nikon, but that's not the point either. FPN on my 5d2 showed up at less than a 2-stop push applied to levels that should have been high enough to not exhibit a problem (e.g. -3 EV down from metered)

Repeating for (who's keeping track of how many times now?) If anyone of you 5d2-lovers actually HAS one, and are brave enough to show, or at least TELL, us how it performs in simple tests, as outlined a pg or 2 back, then please do so. (RL?...)I'd like to compare it to mine, which might have been a bit of a lemon in the FPN area.If you're willing to post a sample of a pushed raw file, kindly include a full res crop so we can see pixel-per-pixel, not scaled down so small as to obliterate FPN in the averaging.Thank-you.

Don't blame the tools for poor craftsmanship. Infact, since the d800 is doing so well for you, let's see some photos you've taken with it. Please do post.

canon rumors FORUM

RMC33, I've not tried the Zeiss 50 1.4. I own the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, Nikon mount, use an adaptor. From what I have seen online, if you want some of the best, if not the best bokeh at 50mm, then the Canon f/1.2 is it. If you want sharpness, I like the one I have. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2 was recently found by Lensrentals, to be sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro planar, which in turn is a lot sharper than the Zeiss 50 1.4. I've not tried any of those, myself. I've only rented the Zeiss 100mm f/2 makro planar, and the Zeiss 35mm f/2. The 100mm had very vivid red colors, was very sharp, with a tiny bit of purple bokeh fringing...with bokeh smoothness on par with my 135L, which is saying a lot (it has no fringing of any kind, as you may know). The 35mm Zeiss was neutral color, more contrast than the sensor could bear (had to underexpose), no fringing lateral or bokeh, and quite sharp (supposedly the 1.4 is sharper.) I mostly don't do portraiture, at least not of people. I should at some point...it's just that I don't like people very much, and more importantly, they don't like me taking their picture for some reason...hahaha. Not sure which happened first! I need to work on my people skills...

RMC33, I've not tried the Zeiss 50 1.4. I own the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, Nikon mount, use an adaptor. From what I have seen online, if you want some of the best, if not the best bokeh at 50mm, then the Canon f/1.2 is it. If you want sharpness, I like the one I have. The 24-70 f/2.8 mk2 was recently found by Lensrentals, to be sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro planar, which in turn is a lot sharper than the Zeiss 50 1.4. I've not tried any of those, myself. I've only rented the Zeiss 100mm f/2 makro planar, and the Zeiss 35mm f/2. The 100mm had very vivid red colors, was very sharp, with a tiny bit of purple bokeh fringing...with bokeh smoothness on par with my 135L, which is saying a lot (it has no fringing of any kind, as you may know). The 35mm Zeiss was neutral color, more contrast than the sensor could bear (had to underexpose), no fringing lateral or bokeh, and quite sharp (supposedly the 1.4 is sharper.) I mostly don't do portraiture, at least not of people. I should at some point...it's just that I don't like people very much, and more importantly, they don't like me taking their picture for some reason...hahaha. Not sure which happened first! I need to work on my people skills...

Gotcha! Thanks.

I will be getting both the Canon f/1.2 Zeiss f/1.4 50's to compare and see what will replace my current Canon 50 f/1.4. My current 50 does not AF anymore (died last night) but is about 6 years old. My biggest concern is the Focus shift in the Canon 50 f/1.2, but I think Neuro made a good point as to find the f/stop you like and AFMA it at that point. I have been told/read the Zeiss does not have any shift and have been using MF on my current 50 for the last year since it started to die hence my reason for asking.

I am not much for primes below 50 but have been considering a few (Canon 14 and 24) as well as finally buying a TS-E for all the Real estate I do (not sure if it will be a 17 or 24 yet).

On the note of the 24-70 MKII, I will be CPS renting one for two weeks for a wedding I will be attending. I am going to bring my MK1 and MK2 and just play around. I have been told on a MK3/1Dx the AF routines in the Mk2 make it focus much faster and more accurate then the older Mk1. Its impressive that the 24-70 is sharper then a prime but I guess Ill just have to see what I like=).

..only because you can't recover 5 stops or that you get FPN when you do try to recover 5 stops. Does it may a discernible difference to your images which are correctly exposed? Do your clients notice the FPN? or rather ... do your clients ask you to recover the image 5 stops? GEEZ

One wonders why they are sticking to Canon at all, if the cameras sensors were really "useless" as alleged.

nobody's asked to recover 5 stops in this thread.I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed 2 stops.I'd like to see someone who has a 5d2 post some samples, as I described back on (now) pg 7 I think.

I've kept my older Canon bodies that perform well. I've tossed mt 5d2 and 7D, they both had horrendous FPN. Sort of miss the AF and fps of the latter but not the low iso IQ of either.Nikon and Pentax are satisfying those low IQ requirements very nicely now. And their hi iso is PDG too.I have neither time or patience to work around the limitations of an inferior tool like the 5d2, much as i otherwise liked it and other Canon kit.

Hobby Shooter

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your "copper wire and silicone" comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.

Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.

As I have said many times. Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES). Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

I found my camera would show FPN with less than TWO stops of push on shades as high as -3EV to start with, even worse on a -5EV shade pushed 2 stops.

So, you underexposed your shot by three stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your Zone II detail-less shadows to midtones. And then you underexposed another shot by five stops, and you're upset that you weren't able to push your maximum-density clear-negatives pure blacks to light shadows rich in detail.

Sorry, but I ain't got nothin' for ya, except to suggest that you really should take an introduction to photography class.

Here's another hint: if your scene has large dark expanses of areas with little detail, you really shouldn't be trying to lighten those areas. Indeed, those are perfect candidates for crushing them to near-black to enhance the image's overall contrast. Trying to lighten them is going in the exact worng direction.

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII, even allowing for your "copper wire and silicone" comment how much DR do you honestly believe they actually added? DxO, and whatever you make of their overall results I believe their testing is accurate, says variation between the two is so small that you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless they were greater to the order of 5-15 times, indeed the difference is so small it almost certainly falls within testing errors.

Stop trying to get around the subject. If you expose properly then you everybody else can get superb results from it.

As I have said many times. Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES). Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

you otta, you can learn a lot from doing so which can spare you from some surprises later. Wish I'd have shot the heck out of test charts w my 5d2 when I first got it, would not have been so disappointed if I'd have returned/sold it.

I don’t like the first shot at all, about 40% of the image is deliberately crushed to black, complete RGB=000, a style I’ve seen you use too often for my tastes. I’d have preferred to see a hint of texture in the t-shirt and collar at least. but if that’s what you and your subject are happy with, so be it.

2nd shot is good, i like it and it doesn’t have to be crushed like 1st eg to look good.

3rd is enjoyable and, if I remember the last time you posted that, didn’t you say it was heavily pushed from your 7D?.. I don’t remember seeing the original or any 100% crops so we can tell if there’s any FPN tho it looks adequate for printing a 5x7 to 8x10 at least.

4th doesn’t do anything for me altho if I happened upon such a scene I’d likely have shot it similarly.

But you will not DARE to wade into this croc’-pond with some specific test shots requests, will you?Bummer, i was hoping to compare how bad my 5d2’s FPN was to others’ 5d2s.Educational opportunities here seem mostly afforded only by the brave.

As I have said many times. Rule 1 for a photographer: Get the exposure right. If you are working for a client that means KNOW WHAT YOUR CAMERA NEEDS BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE METER READING NO EXCUSES). Rule 101 for Canon shooters shooting RAW: ETTR, if you move to -EV compensation you better have a VERY good reason for doing it.Rule101-2: Canon RAW files will give you MUCH better overall image quality if you overexpose and then lower exposure in post. The rights and wrongs of this are immaterial, if it is a question of DR or shadow detail refer to Rule 101.Rule101-3: In post, if you have a dark file DO NOT lift Blacks and Shadows, lift exposure and lower Whites and Highlights.

IF you can't do these very simple things, buy a Nikon. If you buy a Nikon and still find loads of time on your hands because nobody is purchasing your "Art", join a Canon forum and try to cover up your inabilities with trollish nonsense, deny the observations and images others present, hide behind the contrived examples of Nikon "superiority" (which is laughable because everybody here agrees Nikon's have better DR), and, most relevantly, fail in the simple request to provide an optimally exposed real world image where the DR of a Canon actually let you down.

+ many and profoundly stated sir. I would only add "optimally exposed real world compelling image worthy of critical review . otherwise we will again see that stunning image shot directly into the sun that violated all of the rules you eloquently stated.

I posted a shot that I had recovered over 6 stops with a camera with the SAME SENSOR as the 5D MkII..

There’s more to a camera’s IQ than it’s sensor, one of the reasons 1-series cost so much more.comparing 1ds3 to 5d2 is like comparing a PnS to a rebel.

I appreciate the effort you’re expending but.. If you have a 5d2, pony-up. otherwise there’s nothing I can learn from you.

And again, I’m not discussing DR, I’m discussing FPN.FWIW, I’d consider buying the 6D, even tho it has about the same rated DR, because it has much lower FPN than the 5d2. Please understand the difference in noise structures and how they can affect efforts in post.